Testing Essay

868 Words4 Pages
“The law of homicide is permeated by anomaly, fiction, misnomer and obsolete reasoning.” Is this a fair statement for the current state of homicide law? Introduction English Law has been criticized for its harshness against the defendants for unlawful homicide acts. The fundamental problem arises from the definition of murder, as had been stated by LCJ Coke, due to the fact that, according the rule, everyone who fulfilled the requirement of the actus reus, independently of the existence of the mens rea could be be convicted of murder. In other words, when a killing of a person had taken place the defendant would be be sentenced to life imprisonment, even if he did not intend to kill the victim, but only to harm him or if he overacted and did not foresee the fatal results. The statement of the question depicts that harshness as “an anomaly”, referring mainly to the ‘malice aforethought’. In the following essay, it will be examined if in the current state of homicide law such an injustice appears, by examining two categories; firstly, the act of murder and, secondly, that of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Murder Nowadays, in the case of a murder, there is still a great amount of injustice going on, proving the statement of Lord Mustill. That derives from the type of punishment imposed on all the defendants, which is the sentence of imprisonment for life, as well as, the nature of the definition of murder as being too wide. According to the rule of the sentence of life imprisonment, as this was formed after the abolition of the death penalty by the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, the length of the offender’s imprisonment is not fixed, but dependent on the seriousness of harm made. In addition, when the offence is serious enough, it is necessary, that a minimum amount of time, served in custody, is set by the judge at the outset. The

More about Testing Essay

Open Document